I don't exactly know what feminism entails. It's a term that's been heavily bastardised by popular culture and media, beaten into brute submission towards its chosen context and definition by its user, much like a violently abused spouse. I'm all for gender equality though, a phrase that has sometimes been propagated to be synonymous with feminism when really, they are often not the same, and gender equality should speak for itself loud and clear, instead of being unceremoniously shoved under some ambiguous umbrella term. Gender equality is a term that's less abstract and less subject to the user's capriciousness with regards to its definition. We all understand it, crystal-clear, that it simply means the equality of all genders, be it male, female, transsexual, etc.
Amidst the online furor resulting from the viral wife-beating video caught on CCTV, I've since been galvanised into the gradual formation of my opinion about gender equality in domestic violence, divorces and/or marriages. The details of the case are unnecessary, and frankly, reek of more holes than cheese (what kind of person releases such a video on Facebook?), but it's the comments the article has garnered that leave me intrigued.
Although I don't personally endorse the resolution of a problem via physical face-slapping or stomach-punching violence regardless of gender, it happens. It's almost as if there is a genetic strain pertaining to physical violence in the human nature that is impossible to suppress. We're ultimately animals, too, and such a primal emotion as violent aggression has led to ugly cat fights and brawls between genders of the same sex being a dime a dozen on the streets. Fine, we say, slap on some assault charges for them if the violence has escalated to the point of hospital admission or otherwise resulting in severe injury for the victim(s). Give the victim(s) their deserved justice.
But what about violence between a man and a woman? If we see a woman slapping a man, we might stare and gawk in passing, our curiosity bordering on nosiness and risking a punch or two for ourselves. A woman punching a man? Security guards may suddenly appear out of nowhere to break up the fight, and a tiny little crowd might start to pool around the scene, but that's it.
Now, what about a man slapping a woman?
Consider the fact that the idea of a man hitting a woman tends to invoke more outrage than a woman hitting a man. Yes, our outrage might be validly rooted in scientific research that men tend to be 50 to 60% stronger than women on average (ouch, that hurts to admit that we are not that physically equal after all, but it's a fact of our sexual dimorphism), but does the fundamental roots of such public outrage reach deeper than that? When asked, my father and my boyfriend say that they will "never ever hit a woman even if she hits [them]". They might not be an accurate statistical representation of the male population, but am I the only one who sees the problem with that declaration?
It's true that physical violence is more frequently exerted by men upon their wives in their marriages, the usual common denominator for such domestic violence being the abuser's chauvinistic belief that their male gender comes with some sort of God-given right to exercise "control" over their women through hammered fists and whipped belts, all wrapped up in a nice big red ribbon delivered to their doorstep the moment they marry their spouse. A quick Google search about domestic violence immediately confirms this fact that women (children too, but that's for another topic) are commonly victimized.
But, in a Guardian article, it's cited that "more than 40% of domestic abuse victims are males", and most cases go unreported because other male figures investigating the case (police, jurisdiction, etc.) tend to disregard it, or the victimized males do not want to appear unmanly and weak. The collective public mindset assigned to the suffering of victimized males appears to be either "You deserve it!" or "Take it like a man!"; rarely do such cases garner the same widespread empathy and necessary legal action as if the genders of the abuser and victim are then switched.
In Singapore, the jurisdiction has tellingly grouped the laws pertaining to divorce and domestic abuse under the Women's Charter in the Singapore Council of Women's Organisations (SCWO)'s attempt to achieve "greater legal equality" for women. Besides domestic violence, when asked about the possibility of a law revision to allow men to claim alimony from women in a divorce under the appropriate circumstances, then-Minister of Community Development, Youth and Sports, Dr. Vivian Balakrishnan, said that society is not ready to abandon the "key principle" that women still need protection.
How is it that some women might be able to get away scot-free for hitting their spouses with wooden chairs and various other household objects and, even worse, hurling verbal abuse at them but a man slapping a woman might immediately be deemed morally obscene? In our attempt to achieve the elusive paradigm of gender equality, have we inadvertently placed the female gender on some sort of misguided pedestal and perpetuated the weak damsel-in-distress female stereotype in our culture as well as institutionally sexist jurisdictions? Tell me I'm not the only one who thinks that the Women's Charter, while well-intentioned, is also blatantly and misguidedly sexist. Come on, give women our credit where it's due. We're human beings too, just like men, and some of us are, you know, intelligent enough to use this "key principle" to our advantage (e.g. marrying a rich, dying millionaire to be guaranteed financial stability from his alimony in the event of a divorce or imminent death).
Like I said, I don't endorse violence. But Mr. James Bond in the above video does make a salient point that gender should be irrelevant when deciding to hit a person, should violence occur at all. And if a woman hits a man, I think she better damn well be ready to receive a hit back in equal strength.
Amidst the online furor resulting from the viral wife-beating video caught on CCTV, I've since been galvanised into the gradual formation of my opinion about gender equality in domestic violence, divorces and/or marriages. The details of the case are unnecessary, and frankly, reek of more holes than cheese (what kind of person releases such a video on Facebook?), but it's the comments the article has garnered that leave me intrigued.
Although I don't personally endorse the resolution of a problem via physical face-slapping or stomach-punching violence regardless of gender, it happens. It's almost as if there is a genetic strain pertaining to physical violence in the human nature that is impossible to suppress. We're ultimately animals, too, and such a primal emotion as violent aggression has led to ugly cat fights and brawls between genders of the same sex being a dime a dozen on the streets. Fine, we say, slap on some assault charges for them if the violence has escalated to the point of hospital admission or otherwise resulting in severe injury for the victim(s). Give the victim(s) their deserved justice.
But what about violence between a man and a woman? If we see a woman slapping a man, we might stare and gawk in passing, our curiosity bordering on nosiness and risking a punch or two for ourselves. A woman punching a man? Security guards may suddenly appear out of nowhere to break up the fight, and a tiny little crowd might start to pool around the scene, but that's it.
Now, what about a man slapping a woman?
Consider the fact that the idea of a man hitting a woman tends to invoke more outrage than a woman hitting a man. Yes, our outrage might be validly rooted in scientific research that men tend to be 50 to 60% stronger than women on average (ouch, that hurts to admit that we are not that physically equal after all, but it's a fact of our sexual dimorphism), but does the fundamental roots of such public outrage reach deeper than that? When asked, my father and my boyfriend say that they will "never ever hit a woman even if she hits [them]". They might not be an accurate statistical representation of the male population, but am I the only one who sees the problem with that declaration?
It's true that physical violence is more frequently exerted by men upon their wives in their marriages, the usual common denominator for such domestic violence being the abuser's chauvinistic belief that their male gender comes with some sort of God-given right to exercise "control" over their women through hammered fists and whipped belts, all wrapped up in a nice big red ribbon delivered to their doorstep the moment they marry their spouse. A quick Google search about domestic violence immediately confirms this fact that women (children too, but that's for another topic) are commonly victimized.
But, in a Guardian article, it's cited that "more than 40% of domestic abuse victims are males", and most cases go unreported because other male figures investigating the case (police, jurisdiction, etc.) tend to disregard it, or the victimized males do not want to appear unmanly and weak. The collective public mindset assigned to the suffering of victimized males appears to be either "You deserve it!" or "Take it like a man!"; rarely do such cases garner the same widespread empathy and necessary legal action as if the genders of the abuser and victim are then switched.
In Singapore, the jurisdiction has tellingly grouped the laws pertaining to divorce and domestic abuse under the Women's Charter in the Singapore Council of Women's Organisations (SCWO)'s attempt to achieve "greater legal equality" for women. Besides domestic violence, when asked about the possibility of a law revision to allow men to claim alimony from women in a divorce under the appropriate circumstances, then-Minister of Community Development, Youth and Sports, Dr. Vivian Balakrishnan, said that society is not ready to abandon the "key principle" that women still need protection.
How is it that some women might be able to get away scot-free for hitting their spouses with wooden chairs and various other household objects and, even worse, hurling verbal abuse at them but a man slapping a woman might immediately be deemed morally obscene? In our attempt to achieve the elusive paradigm of gender equality, have we inadvertently placed the female gender on some sort of misguided pedestal and perpetuated the weak damsel-in-distress female stereotype in our culture as well as institutionally sexist jurisdictions? Tell me I'm not the only one who thinks that the Women's Charter, while well-intentioned, is also blatantly and misguidedly sexist. Come on, give women our credit where it's due. We're human beings too, just like men, and some of us are, you know, intelligent enough to use this "key principle" to our advantage (e.g. marrying a rich, dying millionaire to be guaranteed financial stability from his alimony in the event of a divorce or imminent death).
Like I said, I don't endorse violence. But Mr. James Bond in the above video does make a salient point that gender should be irrelevant when deciding to hit a person, should violence occur at all. And if a woman hits a man, I think she better damn well be ready to receive a hit back in equal strength.
Eveytime I visit your blog, your posts.. give me loads to think about haha. Just when I thought domestic violence couldn't be more mind-boggling!
ReplyDeleteYeah, I do think that I overanalyse things sometimes! ;) But thank you so much for this; I get a little spasm of joy every time I see a comment like yours!
Delete